Li Huafeng, Li Yongli, Zhang Yanli, Zhu Jinping, Huang Yuqiang
Medical Genetics Department, Linyi Women and Children's Health Care Hospital, Linyi 276000, China.
Iran J Public Health. 2024 Apr;53(4):837-845. doi: 10.18502/ijph.v53i4.15560.
We aimed to compare the difference of the chromosomal abnormalities using karyotype analysis and chromosomal microarray (CMA) as well as to evaluate their application in different prenatal diagnosis indications.
Overall, 3007 pregnant women with prenatal diagnosis indications from Medical Genetics Department of Linyi Women and Children's Health Care Hospital, who underwent standard G-banded karyotype analysis and CMA, were enrolled from 2018-2022. G-banded karyotype analysis and CMA were undergone simultaneously. All fetuses with genetic variants were enrolled for further analyzing. The frequency and differences of chromosomal abnormalities of the two methods were compared in different prenatal diagnosis indications groups.
CMA improved 4.09% (123/3007) of genetic changes compared karyotype analysis. CMA is on par with karyotyping for detection of aneuploidies and gross unbalanced rearrangements. Serological screening and ultrasound abnormalities were the main indications of prenatal diagnosis. The detection rate of chromosomal abnormalities was highest in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) abnormal group. In the ultrasound abnormality group, the detection rate of genetic variants in nuchal translucency (NT) increased group was higher than other subgroups and there was statistically significant difference in the detection rate of pCNVs. CMA can detect 5.57% (40/718) more genetic abnormalities in ultrasound abnormality group on the normal karyotype. CMA improved 0.67% (20/3007) of genetic changes with clinically significant compared karyotype, brought 3.42% (103/3007) of variants with uncertain significance (VOUS).
CMA identified additional, clinically significant genetic variants on the basis of normal karyotype analysis, brought a proportion of unclear significant variants. All the pregnant women accepted amniocentesis should be informed about their characteristics of karyotype analysis and CMA by genetic counselors.
我们旨在比较使用核型分析和染色体微阵列(CMA)检测染色体异常的差异,并评估它们在不同产前诊断指征中的应用。
2018年至2022年期间,共纳入了临沂市妇女儿童医院医学遗传科3007例有产前诊断指征的孕妇,她们均接受了标准G显带核型分析和CMA检测,两种检测同时进行。所有检测到基因变异的胎儿均纳入进一步分析。比较两种方法在不同产前诊断指征组中染色体异常的频率和差异。
与核型分析相比,CMA检测出的基因改变增加了4.09%(123/3007)。在检测非整倍体和明显的不平衡重排方面,CMA与核型分析相当。血清学筛查和超声异常是产前诊断的主要指征。染色体异常检出率在无创产前检测(NIPT)异常组中最高。在超声异常组中,颈部透明带(NT)增厚组的基因变异检出率高于其他亚组,且致病性拷贝数变异(pCNV)的检出率有统计学差异。在超声异常组中,核型正常的情况下,CMA能多检测出5.57%(40/718)的基因异常。与核型分析相比,CMA检测出临床意义明确的基因改变增加了0.67%(20/3007),带来了3.42%(103/3007)意义不明确的变异(VOUS)。
CMA在正常核型分析的基础上,检测出了额外的具有临床意义的基因变异,同时也带来了一部分意义不明确的变异。所有接受羊膜腔穿刺术的孕妇都应由遗传咨询师告知她们核型分析和CMA的特点。